Author Topic: C# Suggestions  (Read 172342 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Demetrious

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2580 on: May 25, 2022, 03:01:52 PM »
This thread has an interesting conversation regarding Terraforming Installations and their utility compared to the ship-based component. Long story short, Terraforming Installations are wretched as they're a logistical nightmare (5 cargo holds per installation + infrastructure required for the population to run them) as opposed to orbital stations, which can be tugged into place much quicker and easier. The fact they cost more is just insult to injury.

I'd like to propose that the cost of Terraforming Installations be slashed, anywhere from one-half to one-quarter their current value. This would create an actual trade-off for the logistical headache they pose for use anywhere outside of Sol. It'd also be a lore-friendly way to explain how it takes a million people on the planet to do what a crew of hundreds can accomplish in orbit - i.e. automation. And as Jurassic Park taught us, that kind of automation is neither easy, nor cheap.  :)

Would it be possible for Artillery, when being subjected to Counter-Battery Fire, would use the higher of their two "evasion" stats? So the higher of Hit Mod or Fortification. This I think would make representing a vehicle's ability to "shoot and scoot" over a Static pieces in-ability better represented w/ minimal effort. Since it happens in the Bombardment phase, which I assume is distinct from the regular Attack / Defend phase, this might be simple~ish to execute.

I'll second this. I've been building Self-Propelled Guns for my invasion units specifically because mobility is their only defense when they're the ones attacking (i.e. dropping onto the planet with no prep time to dig in.) If they don't get that benefit specifically in the bombardment phase, that's rather unintuitive.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 03:05:10 PM by Demetrious »
 

Offline ArcWolf

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • A
  • Posts: 143
  • Thanked: 71 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2581 on: May 25, 2022, 06:01:39 PM »
This thread has an interesting conversation regarding Terraforming Installations and their utility compared to the ship-based component. Long story short, Terraforming Installations are wretched as they're a logistical nightmare (5 cargo holds per installation + infrastructure required for the population to run them) as opposed to orbital stations, which can be tugged into place much quicker and easier. The fact they cost more is just insult to injury.

I'd like to propose that the cost of Terraforming Installations be slashed, anywhere from one-half to one-quarter their current value. This would create an actual trade-off for the logistical headache they pose for use anywhere outside of Sol. It'd also be a lore-friendly way to explain how it takes a million people on the planet to do what a crew of hundreds can accomplish in orbit - i.e. automation. And as Jurassic Park taught us, that kind of automation is neither easy, nor cheap.  :)


As a counter point (as i said in the aforementioned post) making ground based terraformers more efficient or space based ones less efficient could be a good alternative.
 
The following users thanked this post: Demetrious

Online xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1056
  • Thanked: 262 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2582 on: May 25, 2022, 08:13:21 PM »
 --- How about a type of Countermeasure for GSFs? Or two types, even! One that reduces the accuracy of incoming fire, like an ECM and one that increases a GSFs weighting for the random target allocation? So this way we can use the firs type of countermeasure to make our GSFs more survivable versus ground fire, while the second kind can be used to make "Wild Weasels" either with lots of speed and armor for tanking, or maybe with a powerful countermeasure system of the former type! Or perhaps even some blend of these attributes.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1947
  • Thanked: 1372 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2583 on: May 25, 2022, 11:49:27 PM »
--- How about a type of Countermeasure for GSFs? Or two types, even! One that reduces the accuracy of incoming fire, like an ECM and one that increases a GSFs weighting for the random target allocation? So this way we can use the firs type of countermeasure to make our GSFs more survivable versus ground fire, while the second kind can be used to make "Wild Weasels" either with lots of speed and armor for tanking, or maybe with a powerful countermeasure system of the former type! Or perhaps even some blend of these attributes.

While I'm sure there's some potentially terrible way this breaks the game, I'm in favor of expanding the representation for non-combat ground force capabilities, and this would be a good tool to represent modern-style SIGINT or EWAR stuff.
 

Offline skoormit

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 706
  • Thanked: 300 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2584 on: May 28, 2022, 08:49:35 AM »
Suggestion:
Add a "Pause When Complete" checkbox on the Movement Orders pane that controls the auto-turn interrupt behavior for a fleet's current orders.
The box is ticked by default (upon fleet creation, and whenever a fleet completes all orders in its list).



Reasoning:
When a fleet completes all orders in its list, an auto-turn interrupt event occurs (with some exceptions).
Most of the time the interrupt is welcome, because I want to give the fleet subsequent orders (or take some other knock-on action).

Often, however, the interrupt is needless, because I do not immediately want to give the fleet subsequent orders.

Most of the time when giving orders to a fleet, I already know if I would prefer an auto-turn interrupt to occur upon conclusion.
 
The following users thanked this post: JacenHan, papent, Sesse, ArcWolf

Online xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1056
  • Thanked: 262 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2585 on: May 28, 2022, 04:16:27 PM »
--- How about a type of Countermeasure for GSFs? Or two types, even! One that reduces the accuracy of incoming fire, like an ECM and one that increases a GSFs weighting for the random target allocation? So this way we can use the firs type of countermeasure to make our GSFs more survivable versus ground fire, while the second kind can be used to make "Wild Weasels" either with lots of speed and armor for tanking, or maybe with a powerful countermeasure system of the former type! Or perhaps even some blend of these attributes.

While I'm sure there's some potentially terrible way this breaks the game, I'm in favor of expanding the representation for non-combat ground force capabilities, and this would be a good tool to represent modern-style SIGINT or EWAR stuff.

 --- I realize now that I omitted an important detail, that these countermeasures would be for GSFs versus AA.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2022, 10:58:49 AM by xenoscepter »
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1101
  • Thanked: 293 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2586 on: May 30, 2022, 07:21:24 AM »
Top of my suggestion list would be edit for orders.
Speaking in general terms: ways to make repeatable command queues easier to handle as well as making templates more versatile - with the goal in mind to minimise the effort to maintain a larger empire, I would be in for that, too. That it is simply too much effort to maintain multiple and larger empires is one of the few aspects that keeps me from diving too deep into this fantastic story telling device.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian

Offline nakorkren

  • Gold Supporter
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 102 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2587 on: June 04, 2022, 12:37:19 PM »
Would the mechanics allow setting up a queue of ships to be scrapped? Right now when I capture a number of enemy ships, I have to individually go to each shipyard and assign it a ship to scrap, then repeat that several times over the course of a few years to scrap all the captured ships. It would be great if you could queue up scrapping (and production!) at a given shipyard. Alternately, maybe coding-wise it would be easier to add a fleet order that let's you pick a shipyard to scrap the fleet at, and all ships in that fleet would enter a "scrap" conditon similar to overhaul, except they'd progress through it x ships at a time based on the number of slipways at that shipyard.

Would be really helpful for anyone who's playstyle includes a significant amount of boarding and capturing enemy ships, whether combat or civvies.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vandermeer, skoormit, Sebmono

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1947
  • Thanked: 1372 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2588 on: June 04, 2022, 04:51:18 PM »
Suggestion: Amend the "Refuel at Refueling Hub (All)" and "Refuel from Colony or Hub" conditional orders to also refuel from stationary tankers.

This would make it much easier to support mostly-automatic survey fleets with basic tankers instead of having to place colonies for refueling stations and/or develop the Refueling Hub (10,000 RP).
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit

Offline nakorkren

  • Gold Supporter
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 102 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2589 on: June 05, 2022, 12:06:38 PM »
In the Unit Series area, it would be helpful if clicking on the units on the left side (within the series) displayed that unit's description, so you could compare the units in the series to know which one is newer. Right now it continues to display the last unit you clicked from the list of un-placed units on the right.
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll, nuclearslurpee

Offline nakorkren

  • Gold Supporter
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 102 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2590 on: June 11, 2022, 06:03:10 PM »
It would be helpful if the fleet order queue had time estimates for each step in the queue. I assume this data is already being estimated, since there's a total time estimate at the top, and it would be great to know how long each step is going to take even if it's a rough estimate.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian

Offline skoormit

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 706
  • Thanked: 300 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2591 on: June 12, 2022, 09:27:22 AM »
It would be helpful if the fleet order queue had time estimates for each step in the queue. I assume this data is already being estimated, since there's a total time estimate at the top, and it would be great to know how long each step is going to take even if it's a rough estimate.

That would be nice, but I don't think that estimates are being calculated for each step.
The total estimate is just the total distance traveled divided by the speed of the fleet.
Time required for non-movement orders (refueling, loading/unloading, etc) is not included in the time estimate, nor is any time added to the estimate for orders that have time delays.
 

Offline boolybooly

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 65
  • Thanked: 41 times
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2592 on: June 12, 2022, 03:32:57 PM »
Suggest removing the star system name for moons and planets in the second field of the mineral search.

Currently the first field in the row provides star system name which is then repeated for every planet and moon, squashing out the detail identifying the body so you cannot see the actual number of the moon or whether it already has a colony.

If the redundant repetition of the star system name was removed from default generated names there would be enough room to see the relevant detail, if not then there is enough spare width to make the field a bit bigger too.

 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, skoormit, nuclearslurpee

Offline nakorkren

  • Gold Supporter
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 102 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2593 on: June 17, 2022, 10:28:51 AM »
Suggest adding the ability to offer civilian shipping lines a bonus (costs the player wealth) to focus on colonizing (moving colonists and infrastructure trade goods) or fulfilling cargo move requests (Demands and Supplies on the Civilian Economy tab). This would enhance the utility of civilian shipping lines, without turning them into a fully player directed set of fleets. It would also give the player a way to subsidize growth of the civilian lines.

In a similar vein, and I think I've suggested this before, but please add the ability to have civilian lines move minerals, both a fixed amount as per normal for the Civilian Economy and on a recurring basis based on the mineral reserve limits. This would be hugely useful for large empires, not to mention realistic.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2022, 10:46:06 AM by nakorkren »
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, skoormit, nuclearslurpee

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1947
  • Thanked: 1372 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: C# Suggestions
« Reply #2594 on: June 17, 2022, 11:03:30 AM »
Suggest adding the ability to offer civilian shipping lines a bonus (costs the player wealth) to focus on colonizing (moving colonists and infrastructure trade goods) or fulfilling cargo move requests (Demands and Supplies on the Civilian Economy tab). This would enhance the utility of civilian shipping lines, without turning them into a fully player directed set of fleets. It would also give the player a way to subsidize growth of the civilian lines.

Related, I've found that an issue I tend to have is that I can't really give the civilians multiple contract orders as they will only take the quickest and thus most profitable shipping run. E.g., if I want to ship 5,000 infra to Mars and 5,000 infra to Luna, the civs will ship all 5,000 infra to Luna before the first bit of infra for Mars is touched. This makes civilians require added micromanagement as I have to assign the goods demands in small increments.